Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.

Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.

This highlights a massive problem which the Orthodox have with Catholicism and its approach to the Deposit of Faith. Its approach is vastly different to ours.....

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.

Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.

This highlights a massive problem which the Orthodox have with Catholicism and its approach to the Deposit of Faith. Its approach is vastly different to ours.....

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

What gospel are you talking about?

What orthornom is saying is Jesus Christ brought about something that was more or less antithetical to the Jews; Christ wasn't the Messiah they exepcted. Here you have a long line of tradition and then boom Jesus Christ brings in new radical ideas and He himself is radical for the fact God took upon flesh.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

So said a lot of Jews to Jesus.

What gospel are you talking about?

What orthornom is saying is Jesus Christ brought about something that was more or less antithetical to the Jews; Christ wasn't the Messiah they exepcted. Here you have a long line of tradition and then boom Jesus Christ brings in new radical ideas and He himself is radical for the fact God took upon flesh.

I still don't see the point, in this context. The Popes may disrupt a thousand of years of teaching because they hold the place of Christ on earth? Why would Christ contradict His previous teachings?

Your Popes and Magisterum were teaching error for nigh on a thousand years - the eternal exclusion of unbaptized children from heaven.

Were they...or were they just regurgitating the popular theological opinion of the time?

The same as they are still doing today?But I think something which was universally taught and believed for many centuries deserves more respect and credibility than the latest opinion of a mere 40 years.

Not if it was just a widespread theological opinion.

This highlights a massive problem which the Orthodox have with Catholicism and its approach to the Deposit of Faith. Its approach is vastly different to ours.....

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title. .

This Catholic doctrine is the wicked and merciless inheritance from Saint Augustine. Yet no doubt Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore would have seen himself as a model of charity to the people of his diocese.

We were taught this at school, but I always had my doubts. Could never express them verbally since it would have resulted in the leather strap from the nuns or priests. And I imagine that the seminarian saying he did not believe it would have been told he would not be ordained.

Why is "What do Catholics believe on such-and-such matter?" often a very difficult (and touchy) question? I have some thoughts on this which I'm not quite ready to present; but I figured I would go ahead and ask the question, and see what anyone else might say about it.

Have you asked what Orthodox believe? It's hard getting an anwer to that sometimes too...

I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false...

Characterising it as a “popular belief” and a “false” belief does not seem an honest presentation of the the Catholic Church's doctrine.

Fr Harrison writes (see message 20) that it was certainly more than “popular belief.” He says that it “was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis” and “..the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium...”

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die? In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?

There is not. Much of our faith has never been "formalised." We tend to live and believe by our tradition which will be formalised in Councils only when necessary, when heretics disturb the faith of the Church.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.

I would be interested in hearing those quotes if you are able to find them. I didn't think for a minute that the Catholic Church was the only Church that changed its understanding of a few things over the years...I just had no idea where to begin to find examples of Orthodox teachings that change. I believe, actually, that there is change occurring within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as well. There are pastors now that are beginning to say things such as "I can't tell you that an unbaptized baby is in hell" and things like that. I think whenever there is a teaching that is absurd, like believing unbaptized babies go to hell or that they go to limbo, it is only a matter of time before people start doubting it. Eventually, the doubt is so widespread that it causes people to stop and reevaluate the teaching.

I'm thankful that limbo is no longer the status quo teaching of the Catholic Church. If it was I doubt that I would be Catholic today. In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion. I think that's about right where the discussion should end.

Does the Orthodox Church know definitively what happens to unbaptized infants who die? In other words, is there a formal Orthodox teaching about it?

There is not. Much of our faith has never been "formalised." We tend to live and believe by our tradition which will be formalised in Councils only when necessary, when heretics disturb the faith of the Church.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.

I would be interested in hearing those quotes if you are able to find them. I didn't think for a minute that the Catholic Church was the only Church that changed its understanding of a few things over the years...I just had no idea where to begin to find examples of Orthodox teachings that change. I believe, actually, that there is change occurring within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as well. There are pastors now that are beginning to say things such as "I can't tell you that an unbaptized baby is in hell" and things like that. I think whenever there is a teaching that is absurd, like believing unbaptized babies go to hell or that they go to limbo, it is only a matter of time before people start doubting it. Eventually, the doubt is so widespread that it causes people to stop and reevaluate the teaching.

I'm thankful that limbo is no longer the status quo teaching of the Catholic Church. If it was I doubt that I would be Catholic today. In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion. I think that's about right where the discussion should end.

I am not saying TEACHINGS change, but the language used to express them may change - thereby confusing both the educated clergy and the laity. In the mid-20th century, it was not uncommon for Orthodox writers in English to use terminology more familiar to an American audience to try to convey Orthodox thought. It didn't always work well. On the other hand, we see a trend of what I call confused and unintentional 'obfuscation' as a response with the insertion of Greek or Russian words to try to express the nuanced meaning of another tongue.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.

I would be interested in hearing those quotes if you are able to find them. I didn't think for a minute that the Catholic Church was the only Church that changed its understanding of a few things over the years...I just had no idea where to begin to find examples of Orthodox teachings that change. I believe, actually, that there is change occurring within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod as well. There are pastors now that are beginning to say things such as "I can't tell you that an unbaptized baby is in hell" and things like that. I think whenever there is a teaching that is absurd, like believing unbaptized babies go to hell or that they go to limbo, it is only a matter of time before people start doubting it. Eventually, the doubt is so widespread that it causes people to stop and reevaluate the teaching.

I'm thankful that limbo is no longer the status quo teaching of the Catholic Church. If it was I doubt that I would be Catholic today. In RCIA we were told that we entrust the souls of unbaptized infants to the mercy of God and that was it...end of discussion. I think that's about right where the discussion should end.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level. Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible. How that works must be quite a bit more complication.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...". Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject? And where does she say it? Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( ), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level. Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible. How that works must be quite a bit more complication.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...". Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject? And where does she say it? Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( ), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level. Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible. How that works must be quite a bit more complication.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

I hope that is not what she is saying, because it is not Ok for Catholics to reject Catholic dogmas. Those Melkites who reject the teachings of Vatican I are in error.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...". Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject? And where does she say it? Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( ), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level. Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible. How that works must be quite a bit more complication.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

I think it might be useful to compare our respective understandings of "formalize"Toll Houses are a fine example of reversing the teachings of the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy...depending on how one understands "formalizing" a teaching.

You do realise that much of the Church has not heard of toll houses?

If you read Fr Seraphim Rose's very unfortunate book which brought them to light and popularised them in the 1980s among some English-speaking circles, he moans in his introduction that neither clergy nor laity have heard of them.

If you count this as "a fine example of reversing the teachings of the Holy Fathers in Orthodoxy" then you really are somewhat ignorant of Orthodoxy or you are intentionally misrepresenting it for some reason.

I agree Father Ambrose that the teachings of the RCC seem hard to follow as they change over time. Here is an interesting reading from an old work that I have:

"Original sin, as St. Paul has told us, is universal. Every child is, therefore, defiled at its birth with the taint of Adam's disobedience. Now the scripture says that nothing defiled can enter the kingdom of heaven. Hence Baptism, which washes away original sin, is as essential for the infant as for the full grown man in order to attain the kingdom of heaven...But is not that a cruel and heartless doctrine which excludes from heaven so many harmless babes that have never committed any actual fault? To this I reply: Has not God declared that Baptism is necessary for all?...If your child is deprived of heaven by being deprived of Baptism, God does it no wrong because He infringes no right to which your child had any inalienable title.

If your child obtains the grace of Baptism be thankful for the gift...Though the Church, in obedience to God's word. declares that unbaptized infants are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, it should not hence be concluded that they are consigned to the place of the reprobate...All the the Church holds on this point is that the unregenerate children are deprived of the beatific vision, or the possession of God, which constitutes the essential happiness of the blessed."

James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1906. pp. 310-312. Print.

I own both old and newer RC works and the differences are quite apparent as they tone-down many earlier teachings.

Yes, this used to be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as recently as 40 years ago -shocking as it must be for Wyatt and younger Catholics today.

I'm not as easily shocked as you might think. I went to Lutheran school as a child and was taught that unbaptized infants likely go to hell. I'm glad that the Catholic Church "toned down" earlier popular beliefs regarding the fate of unbaptized infants because they are as false as the Lutheran belief that unbaptized babies are thrown into the lake of fire.

This quote triggered some things about old Orthodox works and I am looking for some of my father's books from the 1940's as I recall that there are a number of passages from some of the Orthodox catechisms and pamphlets used in that day that contain language and phrasing that we would not use today. I seem to recall that some of the seminal works of the late Archpriest Michael G.H. Gelsinger, a noted Orthodox priest of that era and a giant in the history of the Antiochian Orthodox Church come to mind although I haven't seen them since my college days as well as publications by ROCOR and others from that era. If I find them I will give some quotes, but finding them is an issue.

I would like to see those quotes too but maybe in another thread and not tangled up with the OP of this thread.

Gee, it's a miracle! I'm "feeling better" !! Actually, I wasn't feeling bad, just not seeing what you were referring to. But thanks for your concern!

Anyway, I think I saw what you were referring to, where Mary said something about suggesting the language could probably be tweaked, etc. Interesting.... I would say the language would need to be a little more than tweaked. First of all, the two of you were referring to Eastern Catholics, not Western (Roman Catholics)--I say that just for the sake of clarity. And secondly, during my catechesis in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, on a one to one basis with the priest, some years ago, similar questions arose. For the life of me I cannot recall him saying that we Byzantine Catholics reject Catholic dogmas. When I pressed him some about it, he did say something to the effect of, "we understand some of these dogmas a little differently than the Roman Catholic Church, and may use slightly different language to talk about them. We are, however, fully Catholic and completely in communion with the Church of Rome." Something like that.

It worked for me then, and it works for me now. I don't see a problem. It may be somewhat paradoxical here and there, but, life has no shortage of paradoxes that we somehow manage to live with and deal with--even in Orthodoxy!

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...". Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject? And where does she say it? Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( ), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level. Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible. How that works must be quite a bit more complication.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

For a Roman Catholic, then, we would have to say that the term 'dogma' does not mean an absolute truth that must be believed, but rather a truth that can be rejected so long as both 'sides' (here I'm thinking of your presented dichotomy of Byzantine-Ruthenian versus Roman) agree that this dogma is not necessary for salvation.

Does that look accurate?

Would you say, then, that there are different types of dogma in the RCC? If so, how are they generally delineated?

Gee, it's a miracle! I'm "feeling better" !! Actually, I wasn't feeling bad, just not seeing what you were referring to. But thanks for your concern!

Anyway, I think I saw what you were referring to, where Mary said something about suggesting the language could probably be tweaked, etc. Interesting.... I would say the language would need to be a little more than tweaked. First of all, the two of you were referring to Eastern Catholics, not Western (Roman Catholics)--I say that just for the sake of clarity. And secondly, during my catechesis in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic Church, on a one to one basis with the priest, some years ago, similar questions arose. For the life of me I cannot recall him saying that we Byzantine Catholics reject Catholic dogmas. When I pressed him some about it, he did say something to the effect of, "we understand some of these dogmas a little differently than the Roman Catholic Church, and may use slightly different language to talk about them. We are, however, fully Catholic and completely in communion with the Church of Rome." Something like that.

It worked for me then, and it works for me now. I don't see a problem. It may be somewhat paradoxical here and there, but, life has no shortage of paradoxes that we somehow manage to live with and deal with--even in Orthodoxy!

Maybe my old eyes are getting tired (it *is* Friday, after all!) but I couldn't find where Mary wrote that "...Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas...". Which dogmas does she say it's okay for Roman Catholics to reject? And where does she say it? Maybe I'm getting dumber by the day, too ( ), but I couldn't see that in the link you posted.

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

This is also very confusing, since we Orthodox treat all dogmas as absolutes that must be accepted, placing heresy and rejection on the same level. Mary seems to indicate that the RCC makes heresy totally objectionable, but some rejection permissible. How that works must be quite a bit more complication.

Your post, Wyatt, and several others here, have brought to my mind the issue of the difference between what is dogma, what is doctrine, what is Magisterial teaching, what is theological opinion, what is just plain opinion, what is pious belief, and what is one thing but mistaken as something else. I know that I, personally, don't feel qualified to discuss this intelligently but I know others here, such as you, Mary, Papist, etc. are probably more than up to the task .

I bring it up because a number of Orthodox, and probably not a few Catholics, too, seem to confuse these things and do mistake them for what they are not, thus claiming that we Catholics hold as doctrine or dogma something that isn't. Hope I'm making sense here .

It seems to me that this may be what makes it difficult for some, especially Orthodox, to know what it is we, as Catholics, believe. If one is unable to differentiate one of those things from the rest, or just chooses not to, or purposely mixes them up, it would make it difficult to know what we believe. Also, my take on it is pretty simple--if one wants to know what we believe, then look first to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that's not clear, then there are other places to look for clarification. If one wants to know what was taught 100, or 200, or 300, or 1000 years ago, there are places to look for that. If one then finds a discrepancy between what is being taught now compared to what was taught in the past, or what may look to be a discrepancy but actually isn't, my own **opinion** about it is--what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? But that's **just me** and I don't like to over complicate things.

While I'm here, there's a quote I came across while searching for something totally unrelated that I think might be interesting and relevant, not just in this thread, but in many others. Unfortunately, I don't have the link. Hopefully that won't be a problem! Anyway, here it is, fwiw:

"In The Catholic Way by Bishop [now Cardinal] Donald Wuerl he says, "Theologians and scholars teach the word and help the Church to penetrate its full meaning. They are not official teachers in the way that bishops, the successors of the apostles, are; theologians do not receive with the bishops that "sure gift of truth" (Dei Verbum para. #8) that apostolic witnesses to faith receive. But they are important companions of faith, for bishops look to scholars for appropriate assistance in understanding divine revelation.""

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

Not only is there confusion in terms of these 'degree' let's say,' but also in the general definitions. In my exchange with Mary, she agreed that Roman Catholics are permitted to reject dogmas in a way that Orthodox simply cannot or would not under any circumstance:

I hope that is not what she is saying, because it is not Ok for Catholics to reject Catholic dogmas. Those Melkites who reject the teachings of Vatican I are in error.

Clearly the Melkites have been allowed to determine for themselves HOW they are going to respond to and interact with the teaching on papal primacy. That's clear. There's no doubt about it. There's no doubt that Rome has accepted it.

That means several things.

One: it means that there is some flexibility in the definition of papal infalibility in the universal Catholic Church. That is actually in place in the document itself. The Melkites extend the statement that papal infallibility does not take the place of episcopal power and authority to include the Patriarchs in their patriarchates.

Two: it means that the Melkites have not, in the process of interpreting the dogmatic constitution, called it a heresy.

Three: it means that Rome has accepted the Melkite position without public chastisement or correcting of any kind. Not only that but the recent popes have asked the counsel of their brother Melkites.

So you can draw any lines in the sand that you like but you'd better line up behind the ones that are ALREADY there!!

For a Roman Catholic, then, we would have to say that the term 'dogma' does not mean an absolute truth that must be believed, but rather a truth that can be rejected so long as both 'sides' (here I'm thinking of your presented dichotomy of Byzantine-Ruthenian versus Roman) agree that this dogma is not necessary for salvation.

Does that look accurate?

Would you say, then, that there are different types of dogma in the RCC? If so, how are they generally delineated?

It means that there is room for distinct interpretations of dogma and doctrine...AS LONG AS...the core truths are not denied and the dogmatic definitions are not called into question as heresy, nor is the Church attacked on account of her teaching. So in this way one speaks of a distinction without a difference.

In practical terms, from my example of pope and patriarch and petrine primacy, it means that when they meet, they meet on equal footing. IF the pope needs a patriarch to meet with him, he should be able to initiate that meeting with every expectation that the patriarch will oblige as much as he is able to do so physically, materially and mentally. By the same token the request must be a request and not issued as an order. Also I have never seen any pope by-pass a Metropolitan in the eastern Churches to go directly to one of the metropolitanate bishops.

So in that sense universal jurisdiction has a practical meaning.

There are other practical expectations in terms of the Roman episcopate, for example. Quite different expectations in fact.

None of it negates the Church's teachings on papal primacy.

The pope will not initiate the removal of a bishop, for example, until there have been many many many warnings....AND....the bishop has lost the support of his own synodal brother bishops. We do need, I think, to dump that conference business and return to synods but for now it is what it is...and that is another question.

You all only seem to be able to see in black and white and a living Church simply does not work that way.